Harmon v. Blackwood (1993)

P., provides that such an 20 SC-2025-0127 amendment shall "relate[] back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h)." " ' "However, the relation back principle applies only when the plaintiff 'is ignorant of the name of an opposing party.' Rule 9(h); Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So. 2d 726, 727 (Ala. 1993) ('In order to invoke the relation- back principles of Rule 9(h) and R…

"Rule 9(h) does not … excuse the plaintiff's ignorance of a cause of action against the fictitiously named defendant; it only excuses, under certain circumstances, the ignorance of the name of the party against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action. … 'A contrary rule would emasculate the statute of limitations, which sets the time period a plaintiff has in which to determine who has hurt him and how.' Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Espey, [ 429 So. 2d 955 ,]…

P., provides that such an amendment shall 'relate[ ] back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).' " 'However, the relation back principle applies only when the plaintiff "is ignorant of the name of an opposing party." Rule 9(h) ; Harmon v. Blackwood , 623 So.2d 726 , 727 (Ala. 1993) ("In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a pla…

P., provides that such an amendment shall 'relate[ ] back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).' " 'However, the relation back principle applies only when the plaintiff "is ignorant of the name of an opposing party." Rule 9(h) ; Harmon v. Blackwood , 623 So.2d 726 , 727 (Ala. 1993) ("In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a pla…

P., provides that such an amendment shall ‘relate[ ] back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).’ “ ‘However, the relation back principle applies only when the plaintiff “is ignorant of the name of an opposing party.” Rule 9(h); Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala. 1993) (“In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a plaint…

P.; provides that such an amendment shall ‘relate[] back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).’ “ ‘However, the relation back principle applies only when the plaintiff “is ignorant of the name of an opposing party.” Rule 9(h); Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (“In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a plaintif…

P., provides that such an amendment shall “relate[ ] back to the date of the original pleading when .. relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).” “Howevér, the relation back principle applies only'when the' plaintiff ‘is .ignorant of the name of an opposing party.’ Rule 9(h); Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (‘In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a plaintif…

P., such an amendment “relates back to the date of the original pleading when ... relation back is permitted by principles applicable to fictitious party practice pursuant to Rule 9(h).” However, the relation-back principle applies only when the plaintiff “is ignorant of the name of an opposing party.” Rule 9(h); Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (“In order to invoke the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c), a plaintiff must ... be ignorant o…

In this case, the plaintiff did not do that.’ “623 So.2d at 727 (emphasis added).

In this case, the plaintiff did not do that.” 623 So.2d at 727 (emphasis added).

Instead, the principal reason for the rule is to toll the statute of limitations in emergency cases where plaintiff knows he has been injured and has a cause of action against some person or entity, but has been unable to ascertain through due diligence the name of that responsible person or entity." (Citing Browning v. City of Gadsden, 359 So.2d 361 (Ala.1978), overruled on other grounds, City of Birmingham v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1992).) See also Harmon v. Blackwood,…

Instead, the principal reason for the rule is to toll the statute of limitations in emergency cases where plaintiff knows he has been injured and has a cause of action against some person or entity, but has been unable to ascertain through due diligence the name of that responsible person or entity.” (Citing Browning v. City of Gadsden, 359 So.2d 361 (Ala.1978), overruled on other grounds, City of Birmingham v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1992).) See also Harmon v. Blackwood,…

See Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (finding that “the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for invoking the relation-back principles of Rule 9(h) and Rule 15(c)” because, even though he knew the name of the physician and his involvement in treating his son before the limitations period expired, he did not investigate and evaluate his claim to determine who was responsible and to ascertain whether there was evidence of medical malpractice); Ex parte Snow,…

See Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) ("Rule 9(h) does not ... excuse the plaintiff's ignorance of a cause of action against the fictitiously named defendant; it only excuses, under certain circumstances, the ignorance of the name of the party against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action.” (emphasis added)).

See Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (when a plaintiff knows the name of the physician and the physician's involvement in treating the patient, it is incumbent upon a medical-malpractice plaintiff, before the expiration of the statutory limitations period, to investigate and evaluate his claim to determine who is responsible for the injury or harm the plaintiff claims to have suffered and to ascertain whether there is evidence of malpractice); Miller v. Nor…

See Harmon v. Blackwood, 623 So.2d 726, 727 (Ala.1993) (when a plaintiff knows the name of the physician and the physician’s involvement in treating the patient, it is incumbent upon a medical-malpractice plaintiff, before the expiration of the statutory limitations period, to investigate and evaluate his claim to determine who is responsible for the injury or harm the plaintiff claims to have suffered and to ascertain whether there is evidence of malpractice); Miller v. Nor…